Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

To diehard adherents of the belief that the second phrase of the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” – is completely dispositive and that the “well-regulated Militia” first part should be ignored... they also find fault with the free speech sections of the First Amendment when it comes to video games and entertainment with excessive violence. But are they actually wrong? If the First Amendment protects violence-inciting “speech” in the form of entertainment, why is that any different from protecting the rights of citizens to keep violence-implementing weapons under the Second Amendment? After all, as important as the right to bear arms is to many conservative Americans, the right to free speech is equally important to many liberals. Ah, polarization, you rise again.

But there is a real issue with ultra-violence in our media of entertainment, which is particularly jarring on those most impressionable – the impact on children. Indeed, the Constitution recognizes a strong differentiation between the rights and protections of adults versus the rights and protections of children. Our film, television and video game ratings systems are part and parcel of noting such differences, but these limitations only go so far in accomplishing their purpose. Further, to liberals who scream that such readily available content just doesn’t induce violence in those who consume it have not, perhaps, watched younger children acting out violent scenes that they have witnessed on the small screen, the big screen, on their siblings’ video games or even in what some would declare is appropriate cartoon fare for children.

Indeed, impressionable children can be taught that violence is a way of life, just as they can be taught tolerance and empathy. On February 18^th, Journal of American Pediatrics published a comparison study of younger children who were specifically exposed to a reduced intake of violence in the context they viewed and were instead provided with programming intended to stimulate increased sensitivity, awareness and empathy versus a control group that was allowed to consume pretty much what they chose. Common sense would tell you the results, but it is still important to understand that tendencies towards violence can be profoundly influenced in this manner.

The New York Times (February 18^th) summarizes the methodology and the results: “The new study was a randomized trial, rare in research on the effects of media on children. The researchers, at Seattle Children’s Research Institute and the University of Washington, divided 565 parents of children ages 3 to 5 into two groups. Both were told to track their children’s media consumption in a diary that the researchers assessed for violent, didactic and prosocial content, which they defined as showing empathy, helping others and resolving disputes without violence. 

“The control group was given advice only on better dietary habits for children. The second group of parents were sent program guides highlighting positive shows for young children. They also received newsletters encouraging parents to watch television with their children and ask questions during the shows about the best ways to deal with conflict. The parents also received monthly phone calls from the researchers, who helped them set television-watching goals for their preschoolers.

“The researchers surveyed the parents at six months and again after a year about their children’s social behavior. After six months, parents in the group receiving advice about television-watching said their children were somewhat less aggressive with others, compared with those in the control group. The children who watched less violent shows also scored higher on measures of social competence, a difference that persisted after one year...  Low-income boys showed the most improvement, though the researchers could not say why. Total viewing time did not differ between the two groups.”

With pre-schoolers watching an average of 4.1 hours of television a day, Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, the lead author of the study and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington noted: “The take-home message for parents is it’s not just about turning off the TV; it’s about changing the channel.”  An Australian study adds two levels of nuance to the above analysis: (1) children of better educated parents have more rules regarding television and generally watch fewer hours than households with lower educational standards and (2) by their teenaged years, computers and the Web take over from television as the dominant (and obviously less-controlled) medium of extrinsic cultural learning, particularly in more affluent families. EssentialKids.com.au (August 2009). Just as common sense must apply to gun control and those who believe that there should be bare-minimum, if any, regulations, so must common sense apply to the dissemination of violence in our media and video games, particularly to the young.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I still wonder why common sense is just so uncommon.